ArticleMedical physics2018
Organ doses in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac-centered fluoroscopically guided interventions: Comparison of three methods for computational phantom alignment.
Article in Medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Scalable Database of Organ Doses for Common Diagnostic Fluoroscopy Procedures of Children: Procedures of Historical Practice for Use in Radiation Epidemiology Studies.Radiation research · 2019Article
- Pitfalls in interventional X-ray organ dose assessment-combined experimental and computational phantom study: application to prostatic artery embolization.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2019Article
- A scalable database of organ doses for common diagnostic fluoroscopy examinations of children: procedures of current practice at the University of Florida.Physics in medicine and biology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess various computational phantom alignment techniques within Monte Carlo radiation transport models of pediatric fluoroscopically guided cardiac interventional studies.
methodsLogfiles, including all procedure radiation and machine data, were extracted from a Toshiba infinix-I unit in the University of Florida Pediatric Catheterization Laboratory for a cohort of 10 patients. Two different alignment methods were then tested against a ground truth standard based upon identification of a unique anatomic reference point within images co-registered to specific irradiation events within each procedure. The first alignment method required measurement of the distance from the edge of the exam table to the top of the patient's head (table alignment method). The second alignment method fixed the anatomic reference point to be the geometric center of the heart muscle, as all 10 studies were cardiac in nature. Monte Carlo radiation transport simulations were performed for each patient and intervention using morphometry-matched hybrid computational phantoms for the reference and two tested alignment methods. For each combination, absorbed doses were computed for 28 organs and root mean square organ doses were assessed and compared across the alignment methods.
resultsThe percent error in root mean square organ dose ranged from -57% to +41% for the table alignment method, and from -27% to +22% for the heart geometric centroid alignment method. Absorbed doses to specific organs, such as the heart and lungs, demonstrated higher accuracy in the heart geometric centroid alignment method, with average percent errors of 10% and 1.4%, respectively, compared to average percent errors of -32% and 24%, respectively, using the table alignment method.
conclusionsOf the two phantom alignment methods investigated in this study, the use of an anatomical reference point - in this case the geometric centroid of the heart - provided a reliable method for radiation transport simulations of organ dose in pediatric interventional cardiac studies. This alignment method provides the added benefit of requiring no physician input, making retrospective calculations possible. Moving forward, additional anatomical reference methods can be tested to assess the reliability of anatomical reference points beyond cardiac centered procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.